About your Search

20130126
20130203
STATION
CSPAN 7
CSPAN2 6
KQED (PBS) 4
MSNBC 2
MSNBCW 2
WETA 2
LINKTV 1
WJZ (CBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 33
Search Results 0 to 32 of about 33 (some duplicates have been removed)
now. nato troops are starting to withdraw. what kind of country are they leaving behind? we're in afghanistan and he sent us this report. >> the afghan capital of kabul is a bustling city. 100,000 troops are anywhere to be seen. they're starting to leave. he tells me afghanistan is a different place from when they arrived 11 years ago. it is remarkable how things have progressed. health care is very different to what it was. education has moved on hugely. i think in terms of the progress to the things we would understand, and there has been a momentum. it has progressed to an extraordinary way. >> the taliban had not gone away. soon afghan security forces will have to fight them on their own. the man who led the intelligence war for most of the last 10 years said the attacks are set to get worse. >> it reduces this. the taliban are going to change their tactics. they are going to modify their strategy. there are going to do more and more spectacular attacks. >> like this one on our first morning in cobble, a triple suicide bombing. officials told us on average there are four
of the speeches he made recently calculated that nato and the fact that the experience in afghanistan is not over yet, but hasn't been a terrifically happy one for nato and not might serve as lead to a which we just don't have the will anymore, the intention to stay on the same scale before, particularly the exception that her partners are are now pulling away. how do you think will really keep nato going? to sustain nato and keep it relevant given her budgetary restrictions? >> in intervening event poses a threat. we thought a little research and said nato the libya situation, where clearly the united states is not going to take the lead, was going to supply reconnaissance, intelligence, surveillance and a little bit of backup. either nato getting together going forward are not. the threat of you stabilize libya, consequences of that for southern europe, the history with european presence they are as a precipitating event. but i think it's going to take something similar to that, one issue that potentially could be that is the whole situation of their weapons things in the fact that europe would
. turkey and nato stressed the system is particularly defensive. >> these batteries are designed to intercept missiles and the threats comes from syria. this is one of three areas. turkey and nato officials have repeatedly said the missiles will in no way be used for an offensive operation or to support a no-fly zone. >> it is pretty obvious that the defensive systems are only for defensive purposes want you look -- want to look at their location. >> and it just as the deployment will contribute to the deal escalation of the prices along the border. russia and iran have said the deployment could spark a broader conflict. >> turkey requested the misfiles after several incidences. those exchanges and bald artillery shells and small arms fire, not just for misfiles. >> there is no acute threat. moralistic misfiles have been used. if they are being used on turkish territory, we're able to apprehend them. >> they have no intention of military intervention. the threat is still there. >> more to come including why the iraqi prime minister will not be allowed to run for another term in o
, and i think now it would make sense that we have sent troops to deploy nato patriot missiles to defend turkey against syria, they see that as something that goes against their fundamentalist ideological thinking, and as a result of that, the group has been called into action. unfortunately, as small as this group might be, one could anticipate future targets on u.s. interests in turkey should further nay to have or troop and hardware ce employments take place in theing months. -- in the coming months. jenna: what do you think is the correct united states response? >> well, first of all, we have to be very serious. this is an attack on a nato country inside a nato country. turkey's a great ally. they've been a member of nato since 1951, and this is a serious attack. this is the eighth attack on an embassy under hillary clinton alone. so we have to have a tough response. i think that it's also very interesting that these attacks are happening when the u.s. policy in the region is really withdrawn. we are not active in syria. we are doing just little, minor things around the edges, and ye
. the group is an anti-american and anti-nato group. you may recall that nato is in the process of c deploying sevel american made patriot missile batteries to combat potential threat from syria. it's fox's top story. jennifer griffin is live at the state department. all of this is falling on sct hillary clinton's last day. >> reporter: in fact, it was an extraordinary scene at the state department just moments ago as secretary of state hillary clinton made her way through the hallways and to the exit where hundreds of state department employees had packed to say goodbye, to hear her final farewell. they cheered. it was a very emotional farewell for the secretary of state. the 67th secretary of state who has now left the building, but as you mentioned, the exit was marred by this attack in turkey on the u.s. embassy earlier in the day. here's what secretary of state hillary clinton said as she left. >> of course, we live in very complex and even dangerous times as we saw again just today at our embassy in ankara where we were attacked and lost one of our foreign service nationals and others in
like nato. nato now has 26, 27 members. is a totally different thing. those are areas i am not so sure the security council of the un wouldn't be better off doing large things or have some variations. nato is always seeing significant cracks, afghanistan is not the only test, but quite frankly half of the soviet union imploded in 1989. we asked, nato members asked each other, asked the institution if there was still a requirement for nato because the soviet tanks were no longer a threat rolling across the boulder gap in germany so it could be -- why do we need it? i think what it is about is the next president should work with our friends and allies in trying to restructure some of these institutions to make the relevant to the twenty-first century, make the relevant to these new challenges, give you another example, foreign aid. bob gates's speaking kansas state, what bob gates was talking about was not just foreign aid, wasn't just talking about aid programs, sacks of sugar. what he was talking about, this is twenty-first century thinking, investment in stability and security, invest
the importance to be vigilant at u.s. and nato and conduct operations on the turkey syria border and calls into question again how to best ensure the safety of u.s. embassy personnel. later this hour we'll talk to peter brooks, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for his take on the latest attack on u.s. interests in that region. >>> well, rebels reportedly capturing a key area in war-torn syria. activists say that opposition fighters now have control of a strategic neighborhood in a northern city, and that's near the international airport. putting rebels in control of a road that regime forces loyal to president assad had used as a supply route. rebels and government troops have been locked in a deadly stale mate in the area since last summer. >>> in egypt now the country's prime minister is warning that chaos is threatening the nation's ailing economy. street violence there and political unrest engulfing egypt for more than a week. all of this coming a day after angry mobs hurled fire bombs at the presidential palace in cairo. egypt's foreign currency reserves have been cut in h
walls would hurt u.s. diplomacy. turkey is a nato country and it's one of america's most important allies in this region. for the u.s., that makes this attack all the more painful. even on allied territory, a diplomat cannot feel safe. james reynolds, bbc news. >> for more on today's attack, i spoke a brief time ago with a director of theture concern research program at the washington institute. turkish officials say this bombing was linked to left wing militants in turkey. why would they attack the u.s. embassy? >> left wing tradition in turkey, rooted in turkey's marxist movements in the 1970's, is famously anti-american and although since the 1907s a collapse of communism these radical movements have been smaller in size, they were once movements with tens of thousands of people. they're still anti-american and i think we've seen a deployment of nato patriot missiles in turkey to guard turkey against instability from syria, so this never lent but kind of -- veer lent but kind of marginalized trend has been mobilized with the presence of u.s. troops and with the arrival of americ
control of the american administration, that the u.s. is an imperial power. it opposes nato. a bit of a throwback group, a far-left marxist group. has some ties in europe and it has consistently attacked turkish authorities and sometimes business interests as well. and this time the u.s. embassy. according to tush irk authorities who have identified the bomber from remains, he was closer to 40 years old and had actually spent four years in a turkish prison for militant activity. but he was released for medical reasons. chaos of police and ambulances in one of ankara's most fortified districts, embassy row. on one stretcher, a well-known turkish journalist. she had come to have tea with the ambassador. she was at a visitor's gate in a security screening room when a suicide bomber came in, and reached for his waist. a guard yelled bomb and then it exploded. turkish media identified the bomber who killed himself and a turkish guard. >> right now, we're all dealing with our sadness at the loss of our fellow member of our embassy, we salute his bravery. >> reporter: the turkish governme
on this. trace, listen, a week ago nato reported that at least one of those missile systems was up and running. >> it is, on top of that shep, there are some 400 u.s. troops on the ground ready to man those missiles in case they are needed. not just to keep the war in syria from spilling into turkey. but also to pressure syrian president bashar assad from using chemical weapons. since the syrian civil war broke out, turkey and the u.s. have gotten closer. nothing new because the u.s. has provided turkey with some $15 billion in arms over the past 60 years. and the marxist groups in turkey, like the ones said to be responsible for today's bombing do not like that. listen. >> they probably have only a few hundred members but they are active and they are kind of triggered into action. it's almost as if they are sleepers. triggered into action whenever the united states sends troops and personnel over to these countries, such as turkey, then you see them come into action. >> he went on to say marxist groups in turkey are much smaller today than they were some 20 or 30 years ago. clearl
. turkey is a nato country and it's one of america's most important allies in this region. for the u.s., that makes this attack all the more painful. even on allied territory, a diplomat cannot feel safe. james reynolds, bbc news. >> for more on today's attack, i spoke a brief time ago with a director of theture concern research program at the washington institute. turkish officials say this bombing was linked to left wing militants in turkey. why would they attack the u.s. embassy? >> left wing tradition in turkey rooted in turkey's marxist movements in the 1970's, is famously anti-american and although since the 1907s a collapse of communism these radical movements have been smaller in size, they were once movements with tens of thousands of people. they're still anti-american and i think we've seen a deployment of nato patriot missiles in turkey to guard turkey against instability from syria, so this never lent but kind of -- veer lent but kind of marginalized trend has been mobilized with the presence of u.s. troops and with the arrival of
did a number of things >> including working at -- number of things, including working at nato headquarters. he was an advisor to four president. -- presidents. he led the afghanistan-pakistan review. bruce has written two books in his time here. a third is about to come out. the first two were about al qaeda. the search for al qaeda and the deadly embrace. the new book coming out next month is "avoiding armageddon." it is about the us -- pakistan -- u.s.-pakistan relationship. general stanley mcchrystal spent 34 years in the new oteri. he was -- in the military. he was the director of the joint staff. in military circles, this five- year. of -- five-year period of joint special operations command is what makes them memorable and historic. the reality is that he has done more to carry the fight to al qaeda since 2001 than any other person in this department, possibly in the country. after that, bob gates got up, and the secretary of defense called him one of the finest men at arms this country as ever produced, then continued over the past decade, no single american has inflict
of the nato intervention. as someone who's studied this region and i have to say i was reading your congressional testimony about north africa yesterday, it's incredibly prophetic, you've gone before congress many times, how much do you see the intervention in libya as a moment that pushed us toward these effects we're now seeing? >> i think it did push us entirely. the question for me was, was it intended, was it ignored? because i think where i differ with some people, we have to remember what happened before the intervention. we have to remember that they requested intervention. we have to remember that gadhafi was threatening to hand down all the people in the streets. we also have to remember that at that time the revolution had started in tunisia and it had jumped to egypt and so it seemed to me that if you have a choice between not allowing people to be mowed down in the streets, you do that. now the link i see with other places is once you intervene, probably the intervention is always easy, it is the aftermath. >> that's what we learned. >> and i think the question that i h
to the parliamentarians of nato. these parliamentarians were very supportive of american drone policy and many of the nato countries are developing their own programs. i asked in english baroness, what will she say when china or iran vaporizes someone on the london bridge because they believe they are a threat to their country? what would you possibly say to object when the argument for drones that we now have the authority to take out anyone or anything in other countries that threaten us? it is anathema under international law. after world war two, we developed an international law that developed stability where countries have to take steps before they go to war. they cannot act unilaterally. the obama and bush administrations have torn that structure down. what is left is the state of nature. the american government that played such a key role in developing this international law is returning the world to a state of nature where the strongest country does whatever it wants. you have to ask yourself -- what happens when we are no longer the strongest country? what happens when there is another country t
the world bank and nato that protected our interest and benefited people and nations around the world. yet it is undeniable that a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions, setting norms and shaping international affairs. now two decades after the end of the cold war, we faced a different world. more countries than ever have a voice in global debates. we see more paths to power opening up as nations gain influence to the strength of their economies rather than their militaries are going political and technological changes are empowering nonstate actors, like active this, corporations and terrorist networks. at the same time, we face challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that spill across borders and defy unilateral solutions. as president obama has said, the old post-war architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats. so the geometry of global power has become more distributed and diffused as the challenges we face have become more complex and crosscutting. so the question we ask ourselves every day is, w
that this is a peacekeeping role for nato. that is what that was all about. >> my time has expired. i would like to ask you one more question. i understand you made a statement indicating that there is no justification for palestinian suicide bombers. but that there's also no justification for israel to "keep palestinians caged up like animals." did you say that and, if so, do you stand by that today? >> well, i said it. and remember the context for when i said it. >> do you believe today that israel keeps palestinians caged up like animals? >> if i had an opportunity to edit that, i would like to go back. i said many things over many years. it was a larger context. the frustration and what is happening that is not in israel's interest, to find ways to find peace and security to israel. if i had a chance to go back and edit it, i would. i regret having used those words. >> thank you. >> senator lee. senator kane. >> it was good to see with my dear friend senator warner, a decorated navy and marine veteran from world war ii and korean war, a longtime member of this committee. it was good to see him here. he
chiefly the u.n., the imf the world bank and nato that protected our interests, defending universal values and benefited peoples and nations around the world. yet it is undeniable that a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions combat setting norms and shaping international affairs. now two decades after the end of the cold war, we faced a different world. more countries than ever have a voice in global debate. we see more passed power opening up as nations gain influence through the strength of their economies rather than their military and political and technological changes are empowering nonstate actors like activists, corporations and terrorist networks. at the same time we face challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that defy unilateral solutions. as president obama's said, the old post-war architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats. said the geometry of global power has become more distributed and diffused as the challenges we face have become more complex and crosscutting. so the question we as
including working at the n.s.c. on detail, at nato headquarters, brought at the middle east and the pentagon. he was advisor to four presidents, president obama asked him to lead his afghanistan-pakistan policy review in early 2009 and he did that for a couple of months before happily, for us, returning to brookings. bruce has written already two books in the time he's been here, actually a third is about to come out, i'll mention that in just a second, but the first two were about al qaeda and then about the u.s.-pakistan relationship "the deadly embrace." . his new book, coming out next month is "avoiding armageddon" and it's the story about the u.s.-india-pakistan relationship and crisis management over the last half century or so. general stan mcchrystal is a 1976 graduate of west point. spent 34 years in the u.s. army. retiring as a four-star general in the summer of 2010. he has been commander in afghanistan. he was the director of the joint staff. but perhaps in military circles, most of all, as i mentioned, this five-year period at joint special operations command makes him memorable
lended to this. she's been one of the driving forces behind nato's no-fly zone over libya in order to prevent qadhafi from massacring his own people. and through deft diplomacy, she has slowly opened burma to the outside world. she's encouraging them to free political prisoners, hold parliamentary elections and finally permit foreign investment. and it's happening before our eyes. and, of course, she has taken special interest in the poorest nation in the western hemisphe hemisphere, an island nation right off of the east coast of the united states, less than an hour and a half flight time from miami. that's the island of haiti. the island nation of haiti on what is an island that christopher columbus was expected to have been the island that he landed, hispaniola now encompassing haiti and the dominican republic. and she has made haiti one of the top foreign policy projects, helping the impoverished island build back better after the devastating earthquake that killed over a quarter million people. in no small measure has her husband -- president clinton -- been a part of that att
that it was going to participate in a nato exercise to essentially dismantle the gadhafi regime in libya, i knew even as that decision was going to be taken, that there would be consequences throughout the sahel. the reason being that gadhafi provided a regime of stability in the sahel that was provided by his provision of direct economic benefits to the region, not only in terms of investment, but also in terms of direct transfers of moneys to the region. he was predictable upon his demise, not only would economic benefits be removed, but toureg soldiers in his islamic region would no longer be on the payroll, and no longer being in the payroll, they would then have to return to the countries of origin, primarily northern niger because they were no longer emerging employed. in the context of the demise, two arms depots were made available in tripoli, and heavy armorments were lewded from those depots and fell into the hands of those who would subsequently constitute and move forward with some secular resistant fighters in the north. that was the first point. the second point that we need to exa
's border? who secures israel's border? it has been suggested that this is a peacekeeping role for nato. that is what that was all about. >> my time has expired. i would like to ask you one more question. i understand you may be statement indicating that there is no justification for palestinian suicide bombers. but that there's also no justification for israel to "keep palestinians caged up like animals." did you say that and, if so, do you stand by that today? >> well, i said it. and remember the context for when i said it. >> do you believe today that israel kids palestinians caged up like animals? >> if i had in a party to edit that, i would like to go bad -- and -- if i had an opportunity to edit that, i would like to go back. i said many things over many years. it was a larger context. the frustration and what is happening that is not in israel's interest, to find ways to find peace and security to israel. if i had a chance to go back and ended it, i would. i regret having used those words. >> thank you. >> senator lee. senator kane. >> it was good to see with my dear friend senat
for the u.n., world bank, and nato that defended universal values and benefited peoples and nations around the world. a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions and shaping international affairs. two decades after the end of the cold war, we face a different war. more countries than ever have a voice in global debate. nations gain influence through the strength of their economies rather than their militaries. nine state actors are empowered. we faced challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that spill across borders and the fight unilateral solutions. the old postwar architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats. the geometry has become more distributed and defused as the challenges we face have become more complex and crosscutting. the question we ask every day is what does this mean for america? how can we invents our interests and also appalled a just rule based international order, a system that does provide clearer rules of the road to fair labor standards. we have to be smart about how we use our powe
.n., the i.m.f., the world bank and nato, that benefited peoples and nation around the world but it is undeniable that a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions, setting norms and shaping international affairs. now, two decades after the end of the cold war, we face a different world. more countries than ever have a voice in global debates. we see more paths to power opening up as nations gain influence through the strength of their economies rather than their militaries and political and technological changes are empowering non-state actors like activists, corporations and terrorist networks. at the same time, we face challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that's still across borders and defy unilateral solutions. has said, thebama old post-war architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats, so the geometry of global power has become more distributed and diffuse as the challenges we face have become more complex and cross-cutting. so the question we ask ourselves every day is what does this
Search Results 0 to 32 of about 33 (some duplicates have been removed)